Analysis of Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion at Lumbosacral Spine

Table 2

Comparison of the radiologic variables.

	Total	Control cohort	ASD cohort	P Value
DA (°)
Preop	17.3 ± 4.6	17.4 ± 4.6	17.1 ± 4.4	0.829
Postop	25.1 ± 5.6	25.7 ± 5.3	19.3 ± 5.1	<0.001
LL (°)
Preop	44.3 ± 3.2	45.7 ± 3.5	44.8 ± 2.7	0.078
Postop	53.4 ± 6.4	53.9 ± 6.2	48.5 ± 6.4	0.001
DLL (°)
Preop	28.0 ± 5.4	27.9 ± 5.3	28.4 ± 5.7	0.720
Postop	34.2 ± 6.7	34.3 ± 6.8	33.7 ± 5.7	0.774
SS (°)
Preop	34.3 ± 5.0	34.4 ± 5.1	34.0 ± 4.5	0.758
Postop	31.3 ± 5.1	31.4 ± 5.1	30.9 ± 5.2	0.702
PI (°)
Preop	55.3 ± 8.6	54.8 ± 8.7	58.8 ± 7.7	0.081
Postop	53.9 ± 4.6	54.3 ± 4.6	51.6 ± 4.5	0.025
PT (°)
Preop	21.7 ± 5.7	21.9 ± 5.7	22.3 ± 5.1	0.295
Postop	22.8 ± 5.4	22.5 ± 5.4	25.4 ± 4.6	0.044
∆PI-LL (°)				0.024
Matched group	123	114 (80.9)	9 (56.2)
Mismatched group	34	27 (19.1)	7 (43.8)
Cage subsidence (%)				0.625
Yes	23 (14.6)	20 (14.2)	3 (18.8)
No	134 (85.4)	121 (85.8)	13 (81.2)

Preop: preoperative, Postop: postoperative, DA: disc angle, LL: lumbar lordosis, DLL: distal lumbar lordosis, SS: sacral slope, PI: pelvic incidence, PT: pelvic tilt, ∆PI-LL: the difference value between PI and LL, matched group: ∆PI-LL  < 10°, mismatched group: ∆PI-LL ≥ 10°.